Discussing "Caesar's Messiah" – a book by Joseph Atwill that reveals a new and revolutionary understanding of the origin of Christianity, who was the real Jesus, what is the New Testament, and when Christ's second coming occurred.

The obvious intro to the Jesus/Titus typology

There is a question I have never been able to answer and I am wondering if anyone can. The typology that begins the Gospels is widely understood by NT (New Testament) scholars:

Given the understanding, why did no scholar ever attempt to determine if the very next story in Matthew was also written using the same genre of the preceding passages? All anyone had to do, to see that the Gospels’ “fishing for men” story continued the pattern established by the Moses/Jesus typology of parallel events, names and locations in sequence, was simply to inspect the known events that occurred at the Sea of Galilee — an easy thing to do, as there are very few. With this simple technique, the following passage from Josephus would certainly have been noticed as having an odd parallelism to the “fishing for men” story in the Gospels:

“Those that were drowning were either killed by the spears or caught by the vessels.”
–– Josephus Wars of the Jews 3, 10, 9

Once this parallel is noticed, the rest are not too hard to spot – especially since they occur in the same sequence. Had anyone walked this obvious path in the sixteenth century, we would be living in a different world today.

So how was the obvious introduction to the Jesus/Titus typology missed by so many scholars? I would love to read your comments below.

28 Responses to The obvious intro to the Jesus/Titus typology

Well, the inital typology is linking Jesus back to Moses and fulfilling messianic prophecy. Then the “fishing for men” shows that Jesus is battling Titus at a lake. How could Jesus be Titus? There’s no reason to think typologically at this point

First, the character ‘Jesus Christ’ in the Gospels is no more Titus than Moses was Jesus. In other words, the Flavians constructed their character Jesus to ‘foresee’ the military campaign of Titus, not to ‘be’ Titus.

The typology in the Gospels was used to link distinct characters to one another. Moses was linked by the author of Matthew to Jesus Christ and then the same system of parallel concepts, names, locations and sequence was used to link the character Jesus to Titus.

Scholars should have – just as a matter of good analytic technique – tried to determine if the ‘fishing for men’ story in the Gospels was typological fiction because this was the genre of the preceding passages. They should also have looked to Josephus’s history specifically because Jesus’s prophecies about the coming of a ‘Son of Man’ were obviously predicting Titus.

Titus was the only individual in history Jesus could have been envisioning. Titus crushed the Galilean towns, encircled Jerusalem with a wall and razed the Temple. And he did all this within the forty years timespan that Jesus specified. In fact, the only way the Gospels can be read logically is with the understanding that Titus was the ‘Son of Man’.

Finally, scholars should have looked to the Flavians as the originator of the religion because they had the motivation, opportunity and capacity to create it. And the fact that all of the original Saints of Christianity were members of the Flavian court simply cries out for scrutiny.

In my opinion, NT scholars have been guilty of the most catastrophic breakdown of human intelligence in history.

Right, it seems obvious because of your work that this is the case but there was no reason to look outside the OT for more typology because Jesus fullfilled the OT. So the NT is just the story of Jesus there’s no reason to think Jesus is foreseeing Titus.

To say Jesus “was” Titus is a common oversimplification of this typology where ever I see it discussed on the web. That’s especially true among the Mythicist School, who after misunderstanding the nature of the Jesus/Titus connection, dismiss it and return to the dead end of “Jesus was ___ (fill in your favorite pagan savior god or new age astro-theology here).”

Atwill-Hudson renders that ineffectual old thesis as obsolete as a rotary telephone with a hand crank.

Jesus is best thought of as the Flavians’ wooden ventriloquist dummy with a hinged mouth, thrown back 40 years into past to babble “prophecy” for validating Flavian claims of messianic authority over the Jews — and damning them as evil for resisting their Roman oppressors. That old Synagogue-Of-Satan slander. To rub salt into wound, the historical Eleazar was repurposed by the traitorous Josephus as another stage dummy to wag his finger and demonize the courageous Jewish Revolt. Naughty, naughty. Bad Jews!

Much as anything else, the insanely dissolute and pro-Roman values vomited from the mouth of “Jesus” give away this Flavian literary robot (batteries not included) for what he was. These were slave values, an all-out assault to subjugate and weaken Jewish soldarity and family stability. Even for the men to castrate themselves “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” What could be more un-Jewish !!! How that sounds like the cult of the Magna Mater that came into Rome from ancient Persia. To castrate yourself? Have any of these other scholars actually read Ha Torah?! And to set one’s household against itself!!! Madness! This was Roman PSY-OP against Jewish culture to weaken the Messianic resistance and later to create generations of tax paying Christians.

I call this the FLAVIAN DESTABILIZATION TEMPLATE.

Our disingenous local Christians here have provided a wonderful way of reverse-engineering the Jesus/Titus connection without realizing it. When confronted by the hard fact that “Jesus” — whom they take to be the Son of Man — did not return before that generation (ca. 33 CE) passed away “to go over the towns of Galilee,” they desperately re-interpret the original word for generation to mean the entirety of the Jewish NATION. Well, I can’t deny that Jews are still around, but no where else have I seen this word for generation tweeked to mean an ethic, nation or race. The Jews For Jesus crowd here is really big on this silly apologetic. A ponzi scheme of ignorance heaped on top of ancient intentional fraud. Another sterling example of biblical GIGO: garbage in, garbage out.

“Religion is still useful among the herd – that it helps their orderly conduct as nothing else could. The crude human animal is in-eradicably superstitious, and there is every biological reason why they should be.
Take away his Christian god and saints, and he will worship something else…”
— H.P. Lovecraft

No, though the story of Jesus was written to appear as the fulfillment of some OT prophecies, Jesus also looked forward in time to someone who would come after him. There is no way that the Gospels can be read coherently without the understanding that the ‘Son of man’ Jesus envisioned was Titus.

Once this obvious point is recognized the Jesus/Titus typology becomes self evident.

Perhaps Bob Eisenman has already answered this question for us. His “we are looking into the abyss.” Many religious gentile scholars may have surmised the truth that lay just beyond the initial Moses/Jesus typology and recoiled from it in horror. Cold feet. They drew themselves back from the edge of “EISENMAN’S ABYSS” before they tumbled over the precipice. No, not a failure of the intellect, but a very human loss of courage. For their own personal reasons. Fear of loss of faith, the loss of tenure in their academic careers, loss relationships with family and friends, existential shock, who knows. The implcations for Western civilization are beyond staggering and the social ramifications are enormous and potentially catastrophic.

Jewish scholars would certainly have their own unique motivations – even today, particularly now – for not pushing this new paradigm into the public headlines. This impacts on Israeli-American relations. That’s all I will say here on that aspect of this question.

And we should not forget what happened to Christopher Marlowe. His non-belief and unpublished book on this topic got in the way of the powers-that-be. He paid dearly for using his brilliant intellect. If you think mass religious psychology is no longer a tool for the national or globalist elites, then you’re not informed on very important recent developments. Anyone really undermining the credibility of the NT, particularly Saul/Paul’s ROMANS, could find him/herself in considerable trouble.

EISENMAN’S ABYSS — It’s chilling down there, even for non-Christians like myself.

Abelard is among the many scholars that share my belief the Gospels were written by the Romans. I really can’t comment on his work other than to say that I do not understand how he reaches his conclusions. My opinion on religious texts in general is that if God wished to communicate with us he would have the ability to do so in a manner that would be absolutely clear.

I was surprised to read that you do not understand how Abelard reaches his conclusions. Does anyone understand how he does? I know Abelard and Roman both seem to connect with Symes work on HA and the list of special rules from Philo, but it is still a little confusing.

I like the ippos anagram and the reading of ‘alpha and omega’, but when i see his list of who wrote what book, i encounter problems. The number systems are also confusing. I would like to think they are correct, perhaps time will tell.

I am looking forward to your next book and hope that other scholars are giving you the credit you deserve.

Though Abelard reaches many correct conclusions he is often wrong. He overlooked the entire Jesus/Titus typology for example. Abelard has no methodology that I am able to understand and I suspect he was told some of the conclusions and then attempted to work backwards.

I mentioned my suspicion to him in a conversation but he denied it. Of course when I asked him to demonstrate how he came to his conclusions he could not. In general Abelard my my life more difficult as I am often lumped in with him by detractors.

There is a very interesting character on YouTube who goes by the name of Calpurn Piso (seems to be his real name). A very successful South American composer and musician, who holds a running commentary on Christian origins in his very slick and funny videos. He can be very comic and abrasive at once. Very articulate. His views are well within the concept of a Roman source, although he pins the Jesus story almost exclusively on Julius. He doesn’t seem aware yet of Atwill-Hudson.

Your explanation of the source of the Christian Trinity was spot-on. Genius is seeing the obvious. Yes, VERY un-Jewish.

Joe, the differences between the style, focus and theology of Paul (multiple authors?) and the synoptic Gospels are quite striking. “Paul” is silent about many of the things we see in the synoptics. Almost an entirely different Jesus concept, and not quite, er, “nailed” (pun) down to a set time and place – or even in this world – as the Flavian gospels place the Jesus character. At times the Pauline literature sounds almost gnostic. What’s going on here? What’s your take on these issues? Thanks.

I decode the Pauline materials and Revelation (which are wired together) in my next book – The Single Strand. In brief, after Domition replaced Titus as Caesar he decided he wanted to replace his brother as Christ as well so he invented another fictional character to be his ‘forerunner’. Paul served Domition in exactly the same way as Jesus served Titus. The Pauline/Revelation typology is extremly vulgar (and by the way Suetonius’s history serves as the same function for Domition’s as Josephus’s history did for Titus) but does have one bright spot – the reader gets to open the seven seals in Revelation and learn the ‘true identity’ of Christ.

This explains why he exiled Domitilla, his and Titus’s sister or niece, and killed her husband, because where too caught up in still praising Titus as Christ, and not Domitian, as he took over.

I remember years ago reading about the anti-Christ being Nero or Domitian, Nero would be the anti-Christ as he held Titus for ransom against a Vespasian takeover, and nearly poisoned Titus, as Titus was the first Christ.

I read the Suetonius history of the twelve emperors, actually, I only read the parts committing on the Flavians.

he history on Domitian is not flatering, I saw the part about Domitian coming up on the white horse, I don’t see that Suetonius was serving the same purpose to Domitian as Josephus as did for Tituts in creating the Christ typology, prehaps you can explain.

By the way I have my Blogtalkradio channel set up, its under New Afrikan HooDoo, Please get back with me on when/if you will grant me an interview, I want you to be the first person to be interviewed, as I have a tremendous view of your scholarship and work. To me it is the most important find on the Christ proposal I have ever heard or read, and I will make the show available as a radio forum for you to debate and air updates, I really don’t want this to die out.

I have been on Acharya s’ forum adding my two cents to your work, she has problems with CM, I Think that I have added extra evidence to your claim,a nd have found even more, such as

and wil add that soon, like the Titus denares that bears the same symbol(the dolphin anchor found in Domitila Flavias catacomb, which happens to be the exact image as the earliest Christian symbol, and I think I can debate that the chrestus myth is indeed the very origin of the Jewish Davidic Christ linkage as KRS originated in Egypt, and Isreal was very much an Egyptian client kingdom at that tim, or at least It(Isreal) played the same purpose to Egypt as it does today to America as a sort of Buffer kingdom to be an outpost between Egypt between any Invading peoples that may come through the area threatning Egypt eventually from outside.

I believe the typology was difficult to discern because there were multiple layers. Jesus Christ was created to foretell the coming of the Son of Man who would be Titus. Titus was the Son of God, the son of Vespasian who was to become the new Caesar. Vespasian modeled his military campaign of Judea after Julius Caesar’s campaign againt the Gauls. Jesus crossed the Jordan, Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon (see Jesus was Caesar by F. Carotta for more). Vespasian saw himself as the new Julius Caesar. Both came from humble beginnings, both saved the empire from civil war. Therefore, Jesus was made to be Julius Caesar. That’s why Jesus was given all the titles and trappings of Caesar. The authors of the NT, under the direction of Titus, were assigned the task of creating a new Torah heralding the coming of the Saviour of mankind, the Saviour of Rome itself- Titus Flavius Caesar Vespasianus Augustus. Lucius Mestrius Plutarch aka ‘Luke’ and the author of Mark used various models for their new literary work including the Bacchae, Virgil’s Aeneid and Homer’s Odyssey. All of these things at one time or another have been noted by scholars. I also believe that Domitian hated his brother Titus (regardless of the Arch he built in his honor) and he resented his father Vespasian. I believe he had his brother killed (poisoned) and sought to replace him in every way and to also expel those who were adherents to the growing religion. Hence the actual beginning of Christian persecution. By the time of Constantine any links to Titus and Vespasian had long been eradicated.

Yes, the setting of the Jesus story is in the past, and when the Jesus character goes up on the cross he comes down as someone else. When Lazarus is raised he is transported to the Feast of Lazarus, which is LITERALLY the cannibalization of Lazarus’s body. Each of these supposed events appears in a ‘present’ as well as a ‘past’ context.

We must keep in mind that much of the NT is satire. Much of the satire is based on events that are reported to have occurred during Titus’s siege of Jerusalem.

The creation of the Jesus character was intended to extend OT typology and ‘predict’ Titus, that is true. At the same time, however, the siege satire, involving starvation and cannibalism, is set in the ‘present’ of 70 CE. Thus there seems to be a mixture of present events and historical myth.

Seen from the point of view of myth, the ‘cross’ is a symbol of crossing-over as much as a Roman execution device. In fact, the cross was not a common device for execution. Most Roman executions were carried out using a vertical post, just tall enough to hold the victim’s feet off the ground as the hands were bound at the top. The cross, however, did make a very suitable literary device.

The image, then, is symbolic. A man, Eleazar in the real world and Jesus in myth, goes up on the ‘cross’, and comes down as Titus. It’s just that this is a ‘prediction’ of the future role of Titus rather than a description of something that actually happened.

We see such a mixture of time frames in the Puzzle of the Empty Tomb, where the farce of mistaken identities is described both with reference to the siege of Jerusalem and the burial of Jesus. Two distinct events, one quasi-mythical and another entirely mythical are set in the present and past simultaneously.

The POTET, as I call it, Puzzle of the Empty Tomb. It always seemed strange to me, this thing about angels, a gardener and the stone rolled away. The story is quite difficult to understand, intentionally so. It is a joke played on the innocent by the unspeakable. Like Oscar Wilde’s comment about the English fox hunt, “The pursuit of the inedible by the unspeakable.” On one hand it is the description of an event by eye witnesses. On the other, it is a complex tale of people mistaking each other for angels.

How does this relate to the siege of Jerusalem? We have four supposed authors: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – in that order. Each of these names is the name of a member of the Maccabee family, famed as leaders of the Jewish Rebellion. Each one of these mythical ‘authors’ tells the story of the discovery of the empty tomb in a slightly different way, but the question remains, “What happened to the body of Jesus?” We know what happened because Jesus represents Eleazar, and Eleazar represents Lazarus. Lazarus is eaten. This is one aspect of the story.

It turns out that the stone wasn’t actually rolled away, but an empty tomb was nearby, and was mistaken for the tomb of Jesus. This was the tomb of Lazarus/Eleazar, and yes, we know what happened to Lazarus.

You see, all of the satirical stories are knitted together. An empty tomb in one story appears in another. And it’s all about the siege.

But the joke goes on to satirize the confused women, all named Mary, but actually each a different person. They are a reference to the Mary that ate her baby, and generally represent what the Romans believed the women of the siege to be: contentious, stubborn and stupid. These women go into a panic and imagine they are seeing angels, when it is the ‘disciples’, who are actually those very Jewish rebels who started and continue the Jewish rebellion.

The short answer to your question is that the characters in the little puzzle are all meant to recall the leaders of the rebellion and portray them as panicky, confused, comical fools.

The puzzle was invented to create the illusion of truth for those who see it at the surface, and a joke for those who spend the time and have the smarts to assemble the pieces in the right order. It is, in a sense, an ancient intelligence test, and a conceit on the part of the Roman authors.

You have to give the devil his due. The Roman wordsmiths simply had no equal. So not only does CM open the door on the origins of Christianity, it presents a fascinating literary work that has not been widely understood.

The more one gets into it, the more depth and subtlety one finds. The NT is easily among the most complex, multifaceted and multilayered literary works. It is actually a work of literary genius. This is hard to appreciate from the standpoint of an indoctrinated believer because the aspects of it that are important to a believer, i.e. the promise of eternal life, the gospel of love, the redemption of sin, prevent the believer from understanding the true depth and profundity of the work. As believers pass away I hope that the incredible story of the NT remains as a monument to the talent of ancient authors. I have learned a great deal about people from the study of the NT through the lens of Caesar’s Messiah.

I just wanted to add that the locations of the typologically linked crucifixions is part of the transformation of Titus into Jesus. In the NT it is at ‘Golgatha’ meaning ‘empty skull’ while in Josephus it is at Thecoas – theo Coas – the Roman god of the inquirying mind. What can one say? Genius.

To appreciate the genius of it all takes a lot of study. Once one sees the many strands and nuances of it it is impossible to miss the mastery of psychology that it implies. Those ‘primitive’ Romans knew more about human nature than many of today’s professional psychologists. A two thousand year joke on us, and only a few of us are laughing. Some day soon I hope we will ALL be laughing! And crying, when we think of all the misery it has caused.

The chart you include above is only the tip of the iceberg concerning structural typology. Due to the size and complexity of what is underneath, I believe you are drawing the wrong conclusions.

This typological pattern can be traced from the Revelation right back to Genesis 1 because the Bible is a fractal. The “iteration” is not simply an occasional recapitulation of Old Testament events in the Gospels, but an organic progression that encompasses every word and phrase, working at multiple levels simultaneously.

This means that the parallels you have noticed are not signs of contrivance, at least not “earthly” contrivance.

Have you ever heard the theory that baptism was actually drowning and resuscitation, hence why some of Jesus first disciples were fishermen. There is no doubt that the church is laced with hypocrisy, it’s glaringly obvious. Though there would not be so many followers if there wasn’t real spiritual teachings gleaned from somewhere, whether they are coming from the lips of a hypocrite or not.

Well, to become a scholar takes a lot of effort and dedication. At some point your field of knowledge overtakes your thought, as you dig deep into details. You become one with your science and your subconscious does not let you turn against yourself, “to commit suicide”. This is an idiom of the theoretical sciences, where there are not experiments, trial and error.